• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did We Unknowingly Elect Hillary?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.


For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The OP is just so bizarre and terribly illogical. How in the world can Hillary be blamed for Trump's saber-rattling when it was under Obama and Hillary that helped to organize the Iranian Agreement in order to try and stop nuclear proliferation and its possible consequence in the first place? And even if Hillary had pushed a similar approach, doesn't Trump have a brain of his own?

Oops, maybe I should take back my latter question.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.


For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?
I was a bit alarmed myself. This is similar to the NK situation earlier this year. Hopefully, his handlers can help bring him back down. The last thing we need, as you have pointed out, is more conflict.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think we might be building up to war with Iran. I do know there are a lot of folks in Washington who want one.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I was a bit alarmed myself. This is similar to the NK situation earlier this year. Hopefully, his handlers can help bring him back down. The last thing we need, as you have pointed out, is more conflict.
Aye, I was thinking the same thing, ie, that hopefully this is false bluster before an attempt at peace.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
I think we might be building up to war with Iran. I do know there are a lot of folks in Washington who want one.
Defense contractors in Northern Virginia are licking their chops.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.


For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?

I can assure you that I am not part of the “we” you are referencing.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think we might be building up to war with Iran. I do know there are a lot of folks in Washington who want one.
An engineer I know worked on a government funded project to develop a disposable
vehicle for towing a mortar. The project was interesting because in order to be
considered safe to abandon, a vehicle must lack any technology useful to survivors
in the attacked country. This meant an engine lacking modern electronics.
A problem arose in finding a compatible transmission, since modern ones require
signals from the engine. He solved the problem with a dedicated signal spoofing
system, which would be of no use to anyone.

What was the purpose of these vehicles?
A boots on the ground invasion of Iran.
If even Americastanian landlords & automotive engineers know of Americastan's
continually planning invasion (if not directly, then by proxy), certainly Iranian
officials would be aware too. How could they not want a nuclear deterrent?
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
An engineer I know worked on a government funded project to develop a disposable
vehicle for towing a mortar. The project was interesting because in order to be
considered safe to abandon, a vehicle must lack any technology useful to survivors
in the attacked country. This meant an engine lacking modern electronics.
A problem arose in finding a compatible transmission, since modern ones require
signals from the engine. He solved the problem with a dedicated signal spoofing
system, which would be of no use to anyone.

What was the purpose of these vehicles?
A boots on the ground invasion of Iran.
If even Americastanian landlords & automotive engineers know of Americastan's
continually planning invasion (if not directly, then by proxy), certainly Iranian
officials would be aware too. How could they not want a nuclear deterrent?
What year was this?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Iran is an ally of the Iraqi government.
I'll wager your left one that this will end if Iran is attacked.
Iraq would stand to gain territory & influence, & we would
likely assist in that goal.
The Shatt al-Arab must still look like a plump prize to Iraq.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I think we might be building up to war with Iran. I do know there are a lot of folks in Washington who want one.
Hopefully they would be willing to be on the front lines of any conflict.

In regards to the OP, reading the twit, errr, tweet... (I digress)... produced a full, wide-eyed, and quite genuine "WTF" moment. In reality though, Iran is not all that much different from the North Korean's in their penchant for blustering, bellicose dialogue. In some ways, this tweet might be similar to telling an unruly child to settle down or face the consequences. If I was Rouhani, I'd definitely think twice before I responded in kind. But giving them a double-dog dare ya isn't the most brilliant chess move, imho.

Without question, America has the greatest military machine the world has ever seen. The downside to this is the nuclear option. If you threaten to blow someone off the map than send in a couple of conventional missiles, you might just get a "Meh!" in response. A nuclear threat has become a somewhat toothless beast since no one, in their right mind, would use them for a first strike scenario, especially against a non-nuclear adversary. It's like threatening to blow your kid's head off with your handy dandy AR-15 if he doesn't clean up his room. The kid is inherently aware that you are not going to do that though you may be annoyed with them.

We live in interesting times.

On a funny note: Maybe Twitter will ban the Commander-in-chief for making threats on their platform.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hopefully they would be willing to be on the front lines of any conflict.

In regards to the OP, reading the twit, errr, tweet... (I digress)... produced a full, wide-eyed, and quite genuine "WTF" moment. In reality though, Iran is not all that much different from the North Korean's in their penchant for blustering, bellicose dialogue. In some ways, this tweet might be similar to telling an unruly child to settle down or face the consequences. If I was Rouhani, I'd definitely think twice before I responded in kind. But giving them a double-dog dare ya isn't the most brilliant chess move, imho.

Without question, America has the greatest military machine the world has ever seen. The downside to this is the nuclear option. If you threaten to blow someone off the map than send in a couple of conventional missiles, you might just get a "Meh!" in response. A nuclear threat has become a somewhat toothless beast since no one, in their right mind, would use them for a first strike scenario, especially against a non-nuclear adversary. It's like threatening to blow your kid's head off with your handy dandy AR-15 if he doesn't clean up his room. The kid is inherently aware that you are not going to do that though you may be annoyed with them.

We live in interesting times.

On a funny note: Maybe Twitter will ban the Commander-in-chief for making threats on their platform.
About the nuclear threat, I see 2 real threats....
1) Accidental launching starting a war
2) The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) defense.

Americastan, Israel, Iraq, & the Saudis would be more hesitant
to invade Iran (again) in the face of nuclear retaliation.
We shouldn't be giving them the this incentive.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think we might be building up to war with Iran. I do know there are a lot of folks in Washington who want one.
And I think it is likely that Trump is using this issue at this point as a deflection from some other things going on that have to be really bugging him, such as the Cohen situation vis-a-vis him.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
About the nuclear threat, I see 2 real threats....
1) Accidental launching starting a war
2) The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) defense.

Americastan, Israel, Iraq, & the Saudis would be more hesitant
to invade Iran (again) in the face of nuclear retaliation.
We shouldn't be giving them the this incentive.
My rambling point was that the nuclear option cannot be on the table against a non-nuclear power. That means a conventional war and we all saw how well that has worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I don't see this dog getting off the mat, let alone going to hunt.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
My rambling point was that the nuclear option cannot be on the table against a non-nuclear power.
The nuclear option not only can be, it has been (Japan).
(Hey look....I can use bold too!)
It will be again if an attacked country sees imminent defeat.
That means a conventional war and we all saw how well that has worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I don't see this dog getting off the mat, let alone going to hunt.
Let's hope this dog isn't rabid.
 
Top